Article 14 Versus provisio to Article 311

It is accepted proposition that principles of natural justice is not straight jacket to be worn by every  authority making judicial decision. Article 14 of the consititution is wider that principles natural justice. But those principles can not be used to thwart order in the society. The  provisions of Article 311 does not exclude post decisional. Thus Apex court has devised a interpretation to save the letters of Article 14 and Article 311

Needs discussion in detail n please explain also extensively

But Jayaveladvocate, Supreme Court is also of the view that post decisional hearing mechanism may be resorted to only when pre decisional hearing may not be possible and the only choice is to have no hearing or a post decisionl hearing. In any case the provisio to Article 311 clearly exclude hearing to the person and that means pre decisional or post decisional, and if that is so, how do we reconcile the conflicts between Article 14 and 311 and which article will prevail over the other: that is the query. Thank You Rekha, for the responds.

But Jayaveladvocate, Supreme Court is also of the view that post decisional hearing mechanism may be resorted to only when pre decisional hearing may not be possible and the only choice is to have no hearing or a post decisionl hearing. In any case the provisio to Article 311 clearly exclude hearing to the person and that means pre decisional or post decisional, and if that is so, how do we reconcile the conflicts between Article 14 and 311 and which article will prevail over the other: that is the query. Thank You Rekha, for the responds.

But Jayaveladvocate, Supreme Court is also of the view that post decisional hearing mechanism may be resorted to only when pre decisional hearing may not be possible and the only choice is to have no hearing or a post decisionl hearing. In any case the provisio to Article 311 clearly exclude hearing to the person and that means pre decisional or post decisional, and if that is so, how do we reconcile the conflicts between Article 14 and 311 and which article will prevail over the other: that is the query. Thank You Rekha, for the responds.

Subject to correction by other learned friends, in my opinion, Art 311 upon it’s bare reading, is a self contained code with respect to subject matter it deals with and is not in conflict with Art 14. No doubt the Supreme Court has brought the  Natural Justice within sweep of Art 14 , but this expansion is to be applied where there are no clear statutory provisions providing for or excluding opportunity of hearing. Where there is specific exclusion of opportunity of hearing, the provision should qualify the test of reasonableness (expanded aspect of Art 14) and the reasonableness is inherent under Art 311 itself.

Thank you Dr.Tripathi, for the responds.